dui, they would be admitted to bail, and they would fail to show up for subsequent prosecution. then in supervising auto theft prosecution for maricopa county i dealt firsthand with circumstances in which drug cartels in mexico would order cars from street gangs in phoenix. which would then be picked up by someone who crossed the border. ostensibly as a one-day tourist, and then be brought up to phoenix, take the vehicle, drive it south where it would then reconfigured for other human or drug smuggling, sometimes both and driven across the open desert until it broke down. prevalent was this practice i would see cases for auto theft, initially about one every other week or so, and then towards the end of 2009, mid-2010, drop down to once a month or once every

other month. a couple of years ago the arizona auto theft task force recovered over 3,000 vehicles in the arizona desert that were used just for that purpose. from my view i work with 26 different law enforcement agencies and another 11 federal and other type of law enforcement agencies just to enforce our laws which can and are enforced in a constitutional manner. mindful of the civil rights of all in respect of our constitution. and when 1070 is upheld, we'll be able to enforce that in a constitutional way that respects the civil rights of everyone within my jurisdiction. and that is mindful of everyone and their participation in our community. and i've been part of an ongoing outreach effort to every segment of our population within the community to avoid segmentation. we can address these issues in a way that is respectful of everyone and that focuses on the need to uphold the rule of law and that still takes into

account some much-needed aspects of enforcing law as well as the economic realities of the situations we phrase. let me touch quickly on what the economic realities are, too. unemployment has fallen in arizona .3% from december to january this year. it fell 1.2% from january of 2011 to january of this year. our budget is now balanced. the $140 million in estimated costs pails in the $1 billion in estimated cost for incarceration, for medical care and education estimated back in 2006. and since efforts at immigration enforcement laws addressing illegal immigration in arizona, the estimated population of those unlawfully present has dropped from 200,000 to 300,000 in the last three years a alone and a resulting 20% drop in arizona's prison population for those incarcerated with an i.c.e. detainer.

those are some of the realities. so attrition through enforcement actually works for arizona, but it does not work for the united states. observations that the population of arizona has simply gone to other states is accurate. so what arizona has tried to do while an effort at the state level to address the impact of illegal immigration is not a sound policy in the framework of what we need to do as a nation. those hyperbolic claims of racism reflects a racist construct of how our community works together and it's just as destructive as those who are motivated to demand a purge of all non-native born from the basis of a racist ideology and i for swain, enough. we need a sane approach. secure sovereign borders, account for those without lawful authority. engage in necessary bureaucratic

reform and engage all levels of government for ongoing, internal enforcement and let me elaborate a little on that, because i think that's what todd wanted to hear from me. secure our sovereign borders. our border must be operationally secure for several important reasons. number one is an international security component. five years, people entered in at the border from every country on our terror watch list. from every country on our state sponsored terror list. we also now have the problem with transnational criminal organizations. we have cartel activity in maricopa county. last year the general in charge of southern command identified in well over 250 u.s. cities there's currently a cartel presence. we've had beheadings in arizona. we've had local law enforcement officers ambushed by those engaged in cartel-sponsored smuggling. we've had officers executed using cartel-related tactics. this is going on in arizona right now. so securing our sovereign border support for all of those reasons

as well as an easier way to require a requirement, people are going to seek that route. adage of water flowing downhill will seek the easier route. i would submit that a definition of operational security includes stating that we're able to detect and interdict those entering our country in an area other than an authorized port of entry within five miles of the border. where we're sensible, put a fence. but a fence doesn't work everywhere. you can't have eyes on if you didn't get to that fence. it's a speed bump. not really an obstacle worth spending money on. the use of passive and active sensors, use of unmanned remote vehicles, all of this can be done in layered approach. we can do it. we've secured the border in other sectors. now it's time to do it for arizona. account for all in the country without lawful authority. the effort at mass deportation

will not be undertaken. we would result with a significant population of those who are citizens, who are children of that population and i just don't want 0 to live in a country where something like that would occur. at the same time, providing a path for citizenship of everyone who sent entered country illegally isn't the right also. what do we do? a three-year hiatus on individuals against employers and individuals, declare where they're work, where their skill set is. mike make some choke but i think it would work. have people come forward and declare where they're working what they're skill set is and over that three-year time frame, go through the background check, they've committed a felony, subject to deportation.

if they have, subject tore deportation. over that time frame employers also then must pay the back taxes for those individuals. at the end of the three-year time frame if they passed a background check, they would be permitted to apply for permanent legal residency, but if they want to become a citizen they have to go home to their country of origin and petition to come back in the legal way. the only way to attain u.s. citizenship. this would put the onus of that decision upon the individual and let them mayor their own choice. during that same three-year time frame, necessary bureaucratic reform must occur. those who are pending naturalization of otherwise done everything we've asked them to do to become a citizen should be naturalized. and then go through and make sure the process to become a naturalized citizen doesn't take more than five to seven years at the most. a legitimate expectation if you follow the rules you can attain your immigration objective.

additionally, taken the obligative data we now have from those who came forward to apply for temporary legal residency, we can then develop an immigration visa system based on objective data. we can get rid of the old zen phobic xenophobic requirements and quotas used in the past and look at what our labor need is first and foremost. and then base an immigration system on that. and we'll also know, too, exactly which industries are in need of low-skilled or whatever skilled labor might be. then with respect to engaging government at all levels, we're going have an ongoing need for enforcement of our immigration law, and it will require a partnership between local, state and federal governments. the 287g program work. i've seen it work within my own county. so we're going to need to continue to do that, because we're not going to haven't i.c.e. agent on every corner, an agent driving down every street. it's just not going to happen. those in the criminal justice system in the future, after this time range, come forward to obtain a legal residency, they're here for some other purpose and we need to know. and we'll also be important for

us to demonstrate resolve in that regard this immigration system as we reform it, bring it into the 21st century and base it on objective data can be implemented in a way respectful of our historic reliance and the reality of the life blood immigration has been for our nation while upholding the rule of law and securing our communities for everybody. thank you. >> okay. i invite robin to come on up. >> use this. it's easier. >> okay. hi, i'm robin hoover. for the last 31 years i've been

a pastor in the christian church of christ and fond you of remain borders the folks that put water stations out in the desert in arizona and confound add few folks like sean hannity. i wanted to talk to you about some of the goals. i lecture around the united states and when i do, almost everywhere i go people, i'll ask them to raise hands. i do these informal polls. how many of you think that immigration is involved in national security and the hands go up. and rational people can argue how we're going to ration stuff. how many want flexible working conditions bi-nationally. hands go up. expand human rights, some hands go up. ours in a nation built on liberties, not on human rights but some of the things are similar. how many want a reduction in the noise along the border, all the hands go up. i will make one clarification and point here. i think, it's my experience that the border communities do suffer very significant financial cost and criminal justice law enforcement health care, education, et cetera.

the nation as a whole benefits phenomenally from migration, but the cost and joys of migration are not evenly distributed. how many of you want to see a reduction in the political violence and the cartel stuff activities in mexico, all the hands go up, but we don't know quite how to deal with that and we are not willing to face cartel participation in the migration today as it's really ramped up in the last four years. and none of us really want to deal with the drug wars. how many of you want to have reasonable law enforcement along the border, every hand goes up. well, some of that stuff is nice.

these are goals. all of the positions, and i will defer to our doctoral candidate back here that we do need to be talking about normandy positions looking at some of the data. our current migration control policies make it difficult to enter into the united states, visible barriers other kinds of things, make it expensive to enter the united states, make it difficult for employers to navigate the system, result in credible systematic human rights abuses, result in family separations, as brittany was talking about, and the thing that's bothered me the most in the last 12 years is that it results in hundreds of migrant deaths every year. so if we have a set of goals and we have a certain kind of, we see some of the strategies that we look at, we should evaluate some of the outcomes. there's never really been sound evaluation of the current

policies and programs, in my estimation. and that is a job for the academy to undertake. if you want to make it physically difficult to enter into the united states, build fences do this other stuff and as norman pointed out yesterday, a new bill to give 100 air miles for, a waiver of environmental laws and so forth for department of homeland security. that's going around right now. it destroys the border environment. it does all kinds of things to large mammals. there's enormous cost associated with this migration and with the kinds of enforcement activities that we're trying to do. we created the -- the coyote system or the human smuggling system by creating a need for it by pushing migration out into arizona and what we've done is driven up the cost in the last 12 years, $400 to $2,400 to get from sonora to phoenix, arizona. what we're doing, one of the consequences is that we never evaluate, we're systematically

handing billions of dollars to are cartel. that's dumb. we see erratically rising migrant death rates bay of the effects of pushing the migrants deeper into the desert, farther away from the safe passages et cetera. employers are becoming increasingly frustrated and i celebrate those in arizona and other places starting to step up and talk about this more forcefully. we make families face very difficult situations taking their u.s.-born citizen children and making -- encouraging them to leave this country. their protections and everything else so that the family can be reunited somewhere else, and, again, i will point out about human rights abuses. so we're here in this room because we believe the system

could be changed and you have to deal with two groups. you got to deal with those here and those that want to come. that sounds you know -- that's pretty simple approach. that's our target. where do we begin? we can learn from previous legalization programs. there's a lot to be done there. the governments seem to have a stunning lack of imagination when bush decided to put the national guard down on the border a few years ago, started in '06, i could have taken the same number of human work hours and created a legalization program during that period of time, and had it cleaned up between may and december, and i would know who those 12 million immigrants were at that point in time. and it would have cost a lot less money. we actually put's the national guard in tucson in five-star resorts. i know the owner of one of them. incredible. we need to use a lot of good social science and hope we're going to hear some in a few minutes over here.

huge numbers of persons who come to the united states to join our labor force one way or the other, do not of wish to become citizen. huge numbers of folks, self-deport every ten years or so. huge population, large numbers. we can learn, study this program a lot better. we can use market-oriented incentives. we can achieve huge results by manipulating only a few small variables. so we need to make this as much as possible and not create permanent guaranteed employment for immigration attorneys for the next half century. we need to start with the two largest groups. the undocumented and the willing workers that are seeking willing employers. for those who are undocumented, we plead to sit down and have interviews and similar to what we did in '86. issue visas from 2 to 12 years

with whoever's the hearing officer and interviewer is, ask a certain amount of discretion are you rear tiring here, going back home? going back home to build a house for mama? your life experience? where are the kids in school? what's going on. we're going to hand awe visa good for x number of years. i'll let other folks figure how long we'll do that and to maintain that status we need to require you that help share the joys and cost of this stuff, get your driver's license, institutional stuff. if you want to become a citizen go get in a separate line. those lines need to be uncoupled. two different things. a lot of people that don't want to be citizens. okay? there's no use to force them through that. don't put them on a path that they don't want to be on. don't make them choose between citizenship in the united states and their family in central america. that's just not right. sorry. they can begin naturalization as desired, and if they want to complete the term of their visa and then actually go home, they can still stay in line in absentia the way many millions of people do already. you can allow the visa holders to travel, buy homes cars, start

businesses pull out a quarter million dollars from wells fargo phoenix and buy a foreclosed house, whatever you want to do and the airlines would love to sell a lot of tickets to go home. for those that want to come leer and work, we need to have some very realistic non-partisan quotas set for folks for two-year visas who want to come from mexico, honduras, guatemala, el salvador. sending countries screen them nor life experience, the things that make them very employable. the migrant opens a $2,500, $3,000 security account wit internal revenue service. the old mantra used to be that employers are more afraid of the irs than they are of the i.n.s. now it's the dhs, but it's true. the irs can, one thing they can do really well is open can't at, assign a name and do debits and credits into that account. almost all of our large employers at least use completely computerized payroll services. so once you've come and signed

on as an employee, you're in the new x, y, z visa program and 10% of your gross will continue to be deposited into that account. at the end of the 24 months or 30 months or whatever we're going to come up with, you transfer that money home, it goes into the lowest end of the economy in the sending country. no government officials are involved. you can do whatever you did as you want to and you go home. if you don't, that money is forfeited to law enforcement. it's literally a bounty on your head instead of us paying for all the border patrol, they're paying for non-compliance. this created the first-of economic incentive to comply with the terms of the visa sand there's something to be pursued along that way. the employers would have the stable and predictable system, and they could work with syndicates and labor organizations on both sides of the border and prep people before they came. so the one thing that employers like to see is a stable system. one they can count on. the department of -- homeland security personnel would be freed up to look for terrorists. i've given testimony to various committee ace cross the last

decade and until we document, inspect and move the migration back to the ports of entry in an orderly fashion, dhs has got a job that they cannot do, actually. so we actually need them to be looking for other people instead of gardeners. when the visa expires, the migrant sends the money home. i've already mentioned that. i was reading a slide ahead of time. sorry about that. what with all this accomplished, we would finally have a sense of increased national security as one of our goals.

no hoop here. employment flexible and security established. basic rights extended since people have to have -- have the right to be present so they can go and complain to authorities or law enforcement or initiate suits, whatever they need to do. migrants would share more of the cost of participating in our system. that's fair. the way citizens do it. the mexican cartel revenues would drop dramatically. a significant concern where i hang out. i go places even the human rights folks in northern mexico will go and talk to some of these cartel folks. i'm telling you, we need to even change the language, in sonora they don't use the word cartel. they use the word mafia. they watch the tv and understand the word. the new policy results that i want to see, migrants using public transportation coming

through the ports of entry. the revenues for the cartel or mafia would decline. migrant deaths diminish. families would be intact. employers could navigate the system. human rights could be expanded. i just -- i had to throw in one shot here. sorry to offend you. this is martine gomez. 18-year-old beauty queen from guatemala in the desert. cooking out there floor 42 days. an open rib cage you're looking at. the pants are still expanded, because in the heat, the legs are mummified. carnivores can't get through the blue jeans. we use this photo with permission from the fiance she was coming to see in oakland, we want to discourage people from doing this. i simply what to say, up there the subhead on this thing. death is now a permanent part of the united states public policy. in migration. death is. i've had the argument all the

way to the commissioner's office and to the secretary of dhs, oh, no, no, we're not choosing that. you could tell me that in '95. tell me that in '98. you could tell me that maybe in 2000. but when you have the exact same result year after year after year and you spend no new resources to reduce the number of migrant deaths, it is now part of the public policy. and when you damn the organizations that are out there working to reduce the numbers of death, then you have said death is acceptable. death is now a permanent part of the public policy of the united states government to deter migration. that statement has got to be made and understood. and that, my friends, is immoral. it should not happen. let me just point out that there's been more than 2,250 documented measured located -- every one of those is a death dot in arizona since --

that's -- november of '99 i believe, or october of '99. some of those dots are on top of dots. humane border, the organization i founded, became the authority for locating where these deaths occurred. department of homeland security provided a certain amount of information, but about 27% of the deaths over the last decade or so were found by other law enforcement officials or the general public. so humane borders collected and created these death maps and so forth. all conclude by saying the following -- the law enforcement-only approach reveal as stunning lack of imagination. we can do this in a very different way. we've got to do this primarily

through politics first. policy changes first. there's no such thing as achieving operation's control of the border. that's illusory. it doesn't exist. only a critically focused bipartisan political solution will address these issues, and that as far as i'm concerned is the end of my presentation. thank you. >> okay. and the final speak sir dr. doug massey from princeton university. >> i don't -- i could have had picture, but i don't. if you wanted to design a dysfunction immigration policy, you couldn't do better than what we've had over the past several decades. undocumented migration, illegal migration, whatever you want to doll is not a global phenomenon. it's a regional phenomenon. 60% of all illegal migrants in the united states are mexican. another 20% central american.

big countries like india or china are under 1%. it's a regional phenomenon of this hemisphere. and it's a failure to deal with the regional realities that we face. in 1993 we signed a treaty with mexico and canada to create an integrated north american economy. free movement of goods, capital, free movement of information, but make no provision for the movement of people within this new integrated economy that is already come substantially into existence. in fact, rather than make a place for movement of people within north america, we militarized the border with our second largest trading partner. and in doing so, we made the problem worse. first of all, we militarized el paso in 1993. and then san diego sector in 1994. the effect was not to stop

illegal migration simply redirect it. in the 1994 arizona was a backwater along the border. nobody crossed there. and arizona wasn't anywhere near the top ten the illegal populations in the united states. but when you built three steel walls from the pacific ocean up to the sierra and station a chevy blazer with border patrol agents staring at the wall complete with infrared sensors drones, everything, people avoid that sector and go to the desert into arizona. 20,000 people arriving every day in tijuana and crossing illegally into san diego, doesn't make a big impression. 2 million people. san diego's 4 million people. lots of mexicans on both sides of the border. 20,000 people going from one urban area to another urban area. it's not very dangerous, and

doesn't make a big impression. 20,000 people arriving in douglas, arizona, and crossing through open ranch land, or open desert, sticks out. they become apparent. this attracted the media pap new invasion. but, in fact, nothing changed. volumes hadn't changed at all. in fact, the militarization of the border, expansion of the border patrol from about 3,000 officers to 22,000 officers today didn't have the effect of deterring people from coming. it paradoxically had them deterring them from going home once leer. simple arithmetic. used to cost $400 a pop to get

into the united states now costs, my data shows closer to $3,000. you've got to work that much longer, stay that much longer to make the trip profitable. so that's going to increase trip lengths just by itself. and what happened was, when people paid the costs and experienced these rising risks and rising rates of death, once they run the gauntlet at the border, they hunker down to stay. rather than returning home to face it again. and the space of ten years, we dramatically reduced the rate of return migration back to countries of origin. the average mexican migrant coming to the united states does not seek to move here permanently. seeks to work here for several seasons, to earn money, to solve an economic problem at home, and invest that money at home and then return. when there was reasonably free circulation of undocumented migrants between 1965 and 1985, 85% of entries were offset by